Chapman v. California Court Opinion

    lr

ed 2d

papers
tiorari,

I I)ilpers
'rt ioritri,

ry %ir,rir+11Lt|trf,"',,lFflf,firtr',rr* i"rlfth"*,n
gR",R

tr?N LftfuL
70s

+l3il6 us 181XRUTH ELIZABET}I CHAPMAN and
Thomns Leltoy Teale, petitioners,

'l

:,.,?l

i.;

V

STATtr OF CALIFORNIA

17_L ed Zcl 70b,82 S Ct g24, reh den
987, 17 L ed 2d 7Ob, 87 S Ct g2.l

386 US 18,
386 US

[No. 9E]

Argued December 7 and g, 1966. Decided February ZO, 1967.

SU}INIAITY

The defendants, rvho wer.e convictecr in a carifornia state court on chargesof robbery, kidnapping, trnrr murcler, chose not to testify at their triar, andthere were extensive adve.se .o.n,,*t-. by the pro...utirs attorney ancrinstructjons by the triar judge t,, tt',e jr.v r. to'.urtuii-lrr"""r.us whichcorrld be clrawn zigainst 
- 
tne aet'endants from their iultur" to testify.Pendins the defendants' appeni to tr,e cili",.ri, ^L,,;;-. 

court, the
Jj'it.!-sl.ltes supreme_ court hertr,ln Griflin ' carifornia, 880 us 609, 14L ed 2d 106, 815 s ct 1229, that ;rdverlse comment upon a defenrrant,s fair-ure to te'stil'v in a stertc crimin.r trial was rr.or.iitiitionar uncrer theFifth and Fourteenth Amenrrmerts. .fhe c"iii;;;i;" sr,r."-" court af-firmed the defendants' 

^co-nvict;ons, trotai"e ih;iliih";;f the defendantshacl been rlenied their federnr .o^tiiuiionot 
"ig.i,i. 

-irrrJrcl., 
adverse com_ments on their failure to testify, such a denial constitute6 harmless errorttnder the californil c:1-stitutional pr:ovision pert*ining to htrrmless e.ror..(63 Cal 2rl t78, 404 p}d 2Og).

on certiorari, the United states Supreme court reversecl. In an opinionpv. f1.acx, J', expressing the uiu*,r nI .r.ven members of the court, it washeld that (1) federal laiv rather than strite tn* *u. rppti.nur" in fashion_itrg a rule as to what constituterl },armt"ss 
"r.o" in' tr,e instant case;(2) before an error i,volving the clenial of a feder:,r co,rJitutionar rightc*tr bc held hrrrmless in lr st.te r,rinrinirr c:rse, trre rouiuiuing court mustbe sati'sfierl bel'ollcl a I'eltsorllrblc rlorilrt thrrt l.hc cr.r'or.tlid not contributc tothc tlcfunrlrrrrt's c:orrvjctiorr; ltnrl (:i,1 rrntlcr suclr a .i 1", Jir,i',.,,ntirruous :rnrlt'c1lt'lttc<l rtlfcrettt:os in tlrc insl.rur1, r':rsc to tlrc rlcl'cnrlirnts, l';rilur.c to tcstifyatrd to the inl'crences,,l,hich coulrl l,,c rlrawn thcr.elrom cliC not constitutehrrrmless error.

I t7 L ed 2d]_45



706 U. S. SUPREI\{E COURT REPORTS t7Led%d

STEWART, J., concurring in the result, exllt'essed the view that clear
violations of the Griffin v California lule should result itt automatic re-
versal, ancl that the court's promulgation of a novel rule of harmless error
was unnecessary.

HRRLAN, J., clissenting, expressecl the vierv that the California Supreme
Court's reasonable application of the California harmless error rule to
sustain the convictions constituted an independent and adequate state
groun6 for upholcling the convictions, :rncl that the rvrit of certiorari should
be dismissed.

}II'AI)NOTES

Classified to IJ. S. Supreme Coult Digcst, Annotated

courts s 781 
- 

state practice 
- 

ap- selves meirn, rvhat they guarantee, and

plication of state iaw rvhether they have been denied.
1. The application of ir state hai'm-

less error rule by a state t'eviervirtg
court is a stitte qttestion t'ather than a

federal questiou rvhere it involves only
el'l'ol's of state procedttt'e oi' state lau'.

Courts SS 781, 912 - state conviction

- federal law
2. \\/hether a state criminal cotrvic-

tion should stand rvhen a state has
failerl to accord fedelal constitution-
irllp' gttaranteed lights is as much of a

fedellrl tltestion as whirt paltictrlar
federal constitutional plovisions them-

States S.16 - federal rights
edies

:]. Tire fot'mulittiotr of the authori-
tative laws, i'ules, and remedies de-

signed to protect people from infrac-
tions by the states of federally guar-
anteed rights ctrnnot be left to the
st:rtes.

(lourts SS 62ir, Tttl - harmless error
rule - apPlicallle law

.1. Fede ral lltu' rather than state larv
is applicltb)e in fashioning a rnle as

CI,II'N'I' SIIRVT(It' I,II}ITAITY ITBFI'ITI'NCES

5 An,l Jun 2cl, Appcril ittrtl Iirt'or .sS 776-782, 791

US DtcBsr ANNo, Allpeal and El'rol' .s-s 1280, 1l-rll3, 1514,

1601, 1622; Constitutional Litn' SS t139.5, 84-o; Courts

Sos 625, 781, 912; States S 46

Ai,lt Drcesrs, Appeal anrl Error SS 442, 803, 896

L ED INDEX ro ANNo, APPeal aud Error
ALR Qulcl( INDEx, APPeal and Efror

,TNNOT:\TION REFEITDNCDS

l'1 ,

inr
hr,

Ai

ci,'
:t,
('i .

is,

I
opi,

I,
ma,
col.

*nr,

Iiirlr
tctt,
inrl,
the
the
thal

Prosecuting attorncy's l'eferetrce to
rlcfentlant's failule to testify as pleju-
rlicial. 84 .'\LR 784.

Cotntrtt'nt by coult suggcstirlg rh:tt
.iruy trtrtl' t:tlit' ittto <'otrsitlcr:ttiotl fzril-
rrt<, of :rt'r'ttsc(l l)('l's(,ll to tt'stifl'. l)'l
ALll ?01.

l'l't'.itrrlicittl ellcct of ittltrtissiort,rf
invr-rlunt:rt'y confessiotr. 1L ed 2tl

1?58,4 L c'd 2d 1838, 12 L ed 2d 1il-16,

1(i L ctl 2tl 12{)4.

Prcjudicial effect of dcnial of con-
stitution:rl right to public trial in
crirtritnl citsc. 4 L e<l 2(l 2136.

liiglrt ol' :tct'ttsctl to irrstructiorl that
lris {';riltrlc l.rt tcstil'y sh:rl} n,rL bc trrlietr
lgitirrsL ltitlt. 8'l L ctl 261.

[7Led2d]



{i

tTLed2d

lr:rt clear
rriirtic re-
lcss error :

iSttprente j

,1" rule to
r:rte stitte
,rri shoultl

CHAPIfAN v
to. -rvhat constitutes 

tl,"t,i,li: 
".,l..i.u

rvith respect to the rlcniat 
"i it ."i..iieral _constitutional rights ,f ; .1.f.;;_ant in a state criminal t.l"i tlrioi n'i,r

ldy:I.u commeuts Lrpon his tailur.c iote.stify.

APPeal and Error S 1514 _ constitu-tional errors _ harmlessr;.; ""-
, 5. Not all feclerat .ur..,titi,iinl,nf o._rors, regar.dless of the fact s ,,,r,1 .i._cumstances, must alu,a1,l; fru,i..,ern*ra
ha.rmful, but there ,ny bo ,nro ,,;;;il:tutional erlo's which i,, ilr. ,.jii,r* 

"ia particular. case are so uuir1r,r.i"riand in.significant that tlr.v ."i,'.,rr_sistently rvith the Iredelal C,,r.iii, it",,,be deeme<l hitr.mles..r, .q() cS hrrt to \,,.ltr-t'ant automirtic rever.sul of l.,,,rr1i,,_
tio n.

Appeal and Error S l5lB 
- constitu-tional error

7'6. Ther.e ar.e some constitutional
t'ights so basic to a fail f.,.inf tfr,,i'tf,liriinfraction can never l.le t.eate,t ,,,harmless error.

Appeal antl lJrror S l2g0 
- presqml)-

tion of prejudice

- 7..In or.der for an el.l.or irrvolvirrg the<lenial of a ferlelal constitLrliorr,,l .i;irtto be h-eld h:rrmless in a stltc climinirl
c:tse, t.he rcvieu.ing cou r.t mrrst lre s:rt_rstrerl be.r'ond a r.casonablc rlr;ubt thrrt

the en'ol did not contribute to the clc_fendanl's convictic,n.

Appeal a.nd Error SS 160i, I622 _ fail-
^ 

,^.:.tu tcstifl. _ adr.erse .orn*untd...-\tthough substitntial evirlence ofa defendant,s guilt is not challers.,l ;.explained by the aefendant, it ;;;;';;;constitrrte halmless erlor for the dl-fendant in a state criminal-tri;i';;;
deplivecl of his federal .on.tiirtiorLl
:-i-{l,r t hlough the prosecuting attor_tie;"s contirrrrotrs antl lepeatecl n,luor*a
commcnt.s lrnrl thr.orrq.h instrut,tit r,s b3)the tria I j Lrdgc to thc 3 ur.y as to r.lLr.ious
infer.ences rvhich crrn be i,.r,r. n .;;l;.;the rletordant f.onr 1,i. f;ii,;;;";;';;.:
tify.

TIIIi COUIiI'

the clefci:datrt te.stifres or not, hisfrtilnre trl ex1_rlain ot. to clen1, f,f. fri,
testimr-rn.r' an1, eyi,lcpce or facts inthe clrsc against hint may be com_meltted rrlton b.v thc conrt :incl bv
.counsel, ;rrrrl m:tt. lre consir]elcrl bi.thc corrr.l rrr thc .i lrn..', Roth lrcti_tronc,r's irr tlris r.trst,chosc rtrrt t()
tcstil'5' ,irt t hcir. tr.irl, unrl .uhe 

Sl.rrte,.s

CALIFORNIA
2rl 705, 8? S Ct Si.j

707

'antee, attd
rr ied.

,ts - rem-

re authori-
rrredies tle-
'om inft'ac-
rally gtt:tr-
Ieft to the

nrless error

ri state larv

'a rttle as

l of con-
1r'ial in

i.;r;.
.t ir,ll thirt
l',,t:rlit'tr

A I'I'E,I Ti,l NCIiS

Pt,ittt f rott Separate Opiniotr,

Constitutional Larv SS gBg.S, .S45 _
comnrent on accused,s silence _

^ retroactivity of ruling
9. _The r.uling in Gr.irlin v Calif,,r.ni,,,

:iS0 LS 60t, t.l L erl pd 106,85 S Ci
122.9,^ holrling aciverse commcnt upona defend:Lnt,s firilure to testify in astrite climinaI tritl Lrnconstitutiunli, l.retrr,iactivel.v applicubIe to cases,,,f, jJ
u'cre tlied befole thc date of the Gr.ifllndecision, but u.elc still pcndins ;; ;ii_rect _revicrv u'hcn thc Ciimn .n.. ,rr,,.idct.irlerl. 

,l_FIom seprirute r,pinion trySteryai.t. J.l

OF COUNSDL
lllorris I;rr.inc lrr.grrcrl thc cirrrsc 1.or. 1lt,t itioners.Arlo E. Smith rrrrrrerl the crtrrse-fo,:^,.J*1ru,,,to,.,t.
Brief.s of Counsei. O ,rgli, infr.a.

OI'INIO\ 0F
I\{r. Justice Black clelivereci theollinion of the Court.
I)etitioncrs, Ruth lJliztrbeth Chrrlr_

nr:rn arrrl 'l'hornas LeIio.r, ,l.errle, 
u,cre

convicted in a Californi,, .t,,te'cr,,,,.i
[386 t:s r9]

;.,.t.I,,.r,,, 
ir, r.lrru.ge t h:rt t hcr. r.ol.,l,r.tl,xrrlnlrpcrl, :rtrrl ntrrrrlcr.erl :t l,tLL_tcrr<lcr. Shc n,trs scrrlurcctl 1o lilrrinrprisonnrcnt and hc to rlcath. eithe tilne of thc tri:rl, Art. f , S i:1, ,ri

f]tc State's (tonstitut.ig,, 
i,i.,,ri,t.rtthat "in arry crirninal clrsc, *lrotfro,l

?

iltrorl)())' liroscr:u1ing t)icm look full
Itlvrrrrt.lrgtt .ol' his light uncler. l he
Stiitc Constitution to contmented 2dl

to testiI1,, filline



708 U. S. SUPRBME COURT REPORTS 1? L ed 2d

argument to the jury froni begin- !i"t'"' We glanted certiorari

ning to enrl rvith ;ti*;;;;; ;;?ti'- limited to these questiotrs:

"n.E. 
to their silence and inferences ,,Where there is 

^ 
violation of the

;;-;h.i; gritt ..tutting therefrom't 
",,tu'oi'b-rln,n v California, 380 US

+;;";;l-f cottrt also chalsed the inn tr4 L ecl 2(l 106, as s ct 12291'
jurl' that it could.,draw ilclverse tn- ;fJ,iu" the errorbehelcl tobe harm-
iu.!n... from pctitioners' fj:J^i"-:: l'".., ur,t (z) it so, was the error

i""}..lll ;.?li;:y.i)'tl-il'i*l"ilri flllH: i; J':: ;T:,I;, 

"3'. 

"d
consideretl on :tppeitl Dy tne -uittt- i
fornia Supreme coutt]'tr'l't,-c"y* 7228'

a"trtrta Ci'iln' v california' 380 US In this cottrt petitione's co,tend

;;;l i; i erl 2rl 106, 85 S Ct 1229, th*t both thesc questions arc federal

i;"rr;i.h we heltl Califot'nia's con- ;;;- i; trc rlecirleil untlct'fedcIill lilrr':

"iit,,ii",r^r 
p.o'isio. antl pr.cticc iil;i 

"i,;,i,. 
feclc'.1 l:is' rve shoulcl

ir",iria on th-e grotttrd that they put a rr"l,r *itt clenial of l fecleral cortsti-

,r"nnltv on the exercise ot' :r persotl's l.itionni right, no nlrttet' horv tttrim-

ffi;i";;l to 
-b. 

.ornp.elletl to brc _l ;;;i;;f, ri','nuia :iutonrrtticalll' r'esult

.ri;;*;',iu"inst himself, gttrtt':ttttecti in-,'.tur.,,l of ir convit'tion, rvithottt

;;"'il; flftn Anrenclment to the ,1"*,",ito *,hether the errot' is con-

'"t3r]6 tls 201 riiur"a harmless;iltlcl that' if \'t'oug
,,,LInitecl State.s Constittltit-'n -rttt<l l"' il.ri., ire uuriot,si comments ou

Alti "rJ/f;:|,";; 
ttl'j"T'iliilli; potiii",u,''' slence can,ot, apprf inr

Amenrlment. su. linitnl, v I{oga1, l"h*l nstanriartl' 
be consiclererl

iiti-us r , 72 L ecl 2rl 653' 84 S Ct

laiig. On appeal, the State Sttpreme

Court, 63 Cal 2'l ii;, ;o; Fia.zog' I'

na*itiing that petitioners had been tl-4'l Before rleciding the trvo

;;;i;.1 o-ie,lerai cotrstitntional right questions he'e-rvhether thele cau

irii',f.,u ."**"rt. on their silence, ;;;; t h:trmless .constitutional 
er-

Il""ril',"r"rs afftrmecl, rlppl-virlg the .ot "ntt 
rvhether the error here rvas-

State constittttion's halmless-et'ror haln-iless-rve rtr-ust first decicle

i."t'f.f"",.,tricn forUiOs reversill un- "t386 us 2tl

less ,,the court sna]i[. orti,. opinion rvhether *state or federal larv gov-

thattheerrorcomplaineclofhastt"t'-tf'"applicationofastate
resttlted in , *i*":'i*ge of jus- harmless-error rttle is' of cottrse' a

l.Excerptsoftheprosecutor's:rrgu-ingthat-al)lo}lgthcinft'rettctrsthatulaybc
ment a'e ."p.o,lr.oi i,i'*u'ipp*ai* t" ;:;il;;;lt rliarvn. the.ef.otrr those un-

this opinion. 
u t: tnu, 

:".-:"..- 
rrl.:l:*i:"t: thc.,<lcrend,nt are the more

2. Thc tlial jurigc chalged the jury: 
' VI. $ aI:

"It is a constitutilnrlri';'t;;; oi'n aortna- ijl' Cal Const' '{t't

ant in it criminrtl ;i;i ;i^; he m:ry not "\n-iuac'n"nt shall lrc set aside' ol ne\Y

'e 
c,nr,ellctf ,,, ,.,iiiir.""'i,,r,,., rvlir.lh,'r t.i,,l s;"t'tt'tl, in itn]'(:itse' on the ground

ttr tt.t ltt' tl"t't tt'ttifll'i']'"* "r-,i'i'c'r' 
ot-, r'i* 'i"'",,i-tii':"t 

ti"rr "f thtr ju.y' o. of the

o\\rr rl('('isi{,rr. ,\s t;;'rt;rl; t'vitL'tr'.t' ,t' f:tcts j".r";:;i":; :r'lrrrissit'rl r'r' tt'jt'ctiun of evt-

:rgltinst lrirtr rvhit.lr tlrc rlof,'rrtlirnL c:rlt rcr- tlt'tlct"'t)l' f(,1' ltIl)' ('l'l()t' irs to ltlt5' tttittt<tr

s,rrrir5ly 1,,, ..*J'",.t.,11"t;".l;.;,;';;, r:x;,1:ti.. ,,i" i,i,',,,ti,,,1, r)r' f('r' rtrrv ('t'r'()t' :rs tr) ^.y
because <-rf far,ts *iIn,]l,r,,i*,.il,.,n*r.'.i,..., ir ,','..i..., r,f 1rt.ttt,r,tltlt.t.. tttllr'ss, ltft(.l.ilIl (.x-

r,o',lnu, nut t.'*tirv",','r"ii,'ir"l'*r''r'"-'r""' Illit*::"::, 
t];::l:l; 

I;1,,,i'0."'liu'Jit

:"".:l:l;":,,;rt,'l',,1:,il:lr,ll:,,"iil,|;'1,,i:'J;l "'r,i"i,,,',i*L'rh" crr,,r'cornpr:ritrc<r.f has

irrt. c'nsirlt,r.,,ti,,,, ,',1i"t",,,ii,,f",,r'i,i,fi.,,," r'.'strltt'tl itr :t ttriscltttiagc t'f jttsticc'"

irr" t.rii.t "i 
sttt'lt evitletttc ittttl rts irrrlit'tt-

l
i

stat,
onll'
stat
the:
den r

inv:,
teer,
int
crhat

Jitn,
$l'0:
cou I

oft
vict
lSr
cor'
eve
tio,
stil
me:
whr
Wit
tior
not
tior
all(l
pe(

of
har
th,
be
Fit'
Iig
at(,
its,
thr'
sit,
to
sal

t.
8ft
dc 1,

sid,'
gtli
itti I ,

sll i

Ex,
les i

ex I'
by
Cor



l, ed 2d

,r'tiorari

rr of the
:IRO US

'L t2291.
rt'hat'm-
he error
383 Lrs
86SCt

cotrtctrd
e fe<leurl
'('t'itl l:t\\' :

e shottltl
'rl cottsti-
,ru'ttttittt-
ll)'r'cstrlt
. u'il hottt
,1f i5 1'on-
. if ivrottg
:r.l('llts 0ll

rrplllvittg
'r,nsitlered

t he two
1lrcrc clttt
r1 iotltl et'-
' Irerc rvas
st decide

ll.l\\, gov_
,f it state

course, lt

liurt ttt:t1' ltt
I ltose rln-

rt' the ttrot'tl

rsi,lr', <lt'tlolr-
Ith('gl'r)tlll(l
. r,t'ol tltr'
I i,,tr of t'l'i-
, rr lr)' l)liItt.('l'
,l':lS to:ll1)'
:!l'l(,1' irll ('\-
,,. int'ltrrlirrg

ll lrc of l.lrl
:rirr,',1 ol' ltlts
'irrstict'."

CITAPI'IAIi I'
;iE(; US 1S, 17 L Cd

state qllestiolt $'hel'e it involt'es
onh'el'l'ols of st:rte l)l'occ(lut'e or
state liru'. Ilrrt the erlor'1'r'ont u-hich
these ltetit ioners sufl'ererl \\.rrs tr
deniirl ol rights gr"urranteetl itglritlst
invtsion b)' the I'ifth rrnd Four-
teerrth Anrcrtdnrents, rights rooted
in the lriill of Rights, ofl'elerl and
chamlrionerl in thc Corr.qrcss bl-
Jlrmes l,Ilrrlison, ri'ho tolrl the Con-
gress th:rt the "irtrleltenrlent" fedcrrtl
coults r,vorrlrl be thc "guirrrliirns
of those I'ighfs."+ Whelhcr ir con-
victi<ln l'ol crir.ne shoulrl stlrnrl tvheu
:t St:rte has l':riletl to :rccorrl I'crltrrrl
c<lnsl itut iorrlrllv grr:rllntt,ctl r.ighlsr is
every bit lrs nrrrch of ir I't,tlcllrl rlrres-
tion as tvhirt ltarticlilrrr. ferleral con-
stitutional lirovisions thcmselvcrs
mean, lvhat they gulrruntee, iut(l
rvhether Jhev have becn rlenied.
With frrithfulness to thc constitLl-
tionul union of the Strttes, \\'e ciilt-
not lelrvc 1o the St:rtes thc formula-
tion of the ttrrtholitativc lirrvs, rules,
:rn(1 renrcrlies designerl to protect
people frour inflirctions Jtv thc States
of ferleurlli' guirrirntced rights. \\'e
hlrve no ht sitittiorr in sirf in.q t hlrt
the riglrl ol'llrcse l)r:titiolt('r's not to
be punishcrl 1'rlr exelt.ising theil
Iriftli irnrl Ir<turtcenth Arncn<lr-itent
right to be silent-exltlesslv cre-
ated b1' t he Ifcderal Constitr.rtion
itself-is u fecielal light u'hich, in
the absence ol :rpproltrilrte congres-
sional uction, it is our resltonsibilitl.
to protect lty firshioning the neces-
sarv rnle.

CAI,IiTORNIA
2cl ?05, 8? S Ct E2.1

II.

709

l 5 l \\/e ale urged b1' petitioners
1o holrl that all feclcr.rrl constitutionrrl
el'r'ors, regzrrc.iless o1 the f;tcts irrtd
circttmstirnces, nrrrsL alu':r),s be
dcemcd htrrmful. Such a holdiug,

':'[3s(; t's 22 I

':'rrs petitionels col'i'ectl1' point out,
\\'oLrl(l lcquire iln lutomatic rever-
slrl o1' their couvictions ancl nrirke
frrrthcl rliscr-rssiorr ultnecessrrr\r. \\re
decline to aclopt :rnr, *nch rule. All
50 St.:rtcs lrirve hlu'nrlcss-cn'or stat-
rrtcs or I'ul(,s, iut(l thc United Strrtes
Iottg rrl.ro thlclrrgh its Cr,ngless estlrb-
lishctl l'or its courLs 1 hc lLrlc l lttrt
jtr<lgmcnts shltll nol bc leversed for
"el'r'ol's or defects rvhich clo not af-
fcct thc substantitl rights of the
puLties." 28 USC S 2111.5 None of
tlicse nrlcs on its ftrce riistinguishes
betu'ecn federal const itutional el'rol's
anrl erlors of slatc llrrv or fedelirl
stirtr-rtes and rules. All of these
i'Lt)cs, state ol ferlei'irl, sel've a \rcty
ruscful pulpose insoflrr its the.u- b)oclt
setting lLside convictions for snriill
cl'r'ols ol rlefects tlirrt ]rave little, if
irnv, likclihoo(l of' hlrving chlrnged
thc i'csult of thc triril. \\'e conciude
that tircre may bc some constitu-
tionirl el'l'ol-s u'hich in the setting of
:r pulticular case iu'e so unimportant
an(l insignificant thrrt thet' nli),,
c<.rnsistent rvith the Ferleral Consti-
tution, be cleemeil hlrrmlcss, not re-
tluit'ing tire automatic I'eversal of
thc convietion.

:f
:'t;

,i,
1:

,t
I

it.,

:1a.

.t,
t'

I
I

:r{,l. "If thcy Ithc first tcn unrt,ndnrents]
:ire incorpollrtt'tl into thc (lorrstitution, itr-
rlt'pcntlt,trt t|'il,unirls of justicc s,ill con-
sidrrr thcnrst,lvt's in a pt,t:uliltr nlrnncL tho
gurtlrlilrrrs of tlrr,st' r'iglrts; tlrt'v rvill bc lrn
itrtpcnrtr:rlrlt, [rrrl,ur':u l< lrg:rinsL cvct'v irs-
sun)l)tiorl ot' yrorvt,r' irr thr. Lr.11isl:itivc rrr.
l')xccutivt,; t.lrt,y tvill be rr:ttLrr.:rll5, It,rl tr_r

t t.sist t'vct')' r,rrt.r'oirr.hntcnL trlrr,n r.ights
exlrrossly stilrul:rtc<l for in thc ConstiLr.ttion
by thc tlt'clrrlation of rights." 1 Annals of
Cong 431) ( 17l.ilr).

:r. 2ii LiSC g 2111 provirles:
"Orr thc hc:rling'of any appcirl or rvt.it

(rl' ( (,r'ti()rllli irr ;rrty c:Lsc, thc court shall
ri ivr, .jrrlgrrrcrrt irf ttl irrr e -x:Lnrirurtiotr ol the
rr.rcolrl *'iLlrouL r'<^grrrtl to c) r'ors or tlc[ct,Ls
',r'lticlt rlo rroL irll'cct thc srrlistlnti:rl riglrts
r,f tltr,p:rltir.s."

I"crl Ittrlr' (1r'irrr I'r'r,<' 52(ir) plovirlr.s:
"r\tty t,r'r'or', rlr,k,r.t, ilrt,gul:Lt'itt, ()l' v:rl.i-

arrcc u,hiclr .rlocs not :rll cct substantial
riglrts sh:rll bc dislc,g:rr.tlcri."

Scc also l'cd ltulc Civ l,roc 61.



710 U. S. SUPRIIME

III.
In fashioning a harmless-constitt-t-

tional-error rule, we must lecognize
that harmiess-error rules can lvork
very unfair and mischievous results
when, for example, highly inrport:rnt
ancl persutrsive eviclerlce, or ttrgtl-
ment, though Iegaliy forbiclden,
finrls its way into a trial in which
the question of guilt or innocence is

x1386 US 2.31

a close one. What* harmless-error
rules all aim at is a rule that rvill
save the good in harmless-errol
practices u'hile avoiding the bad, so
far as possible.

t6, 7l The federal rule emphasizes
"substantial rights" iIS clo most
others. The Califorria constittt-
tional rule emphasizes "a nliscar-
riage of iustice,"6 but the Ctrliforni:t
courts h:rve treutralized this to some
extent by emphasis, antl pet'haps
overenrphasis, upon the court's
view of "overrghelming evidence."T
We prefer the approach of this
Court in decicling rvhat was harm-
les.s error in otir recent case of
Fahv v Connecticut, 375 US 85, 11

L ed 2d 177,84 S Ct 229. There u'e
said: "The question is rvhether
there is a t'easonable possibilit)' that
the evidence compl:rittetl of might
have cotrtributed to the cotlvictiol'l."
Id., at 86-87, 11 L ed 2cl at 173. Al-
though our prior cases have incli-
catecl that there are some constitu-
tion:tl rights so basic to a fair trial
th:rt their infraction catr ttever be
treirted :ls harmlcss errot',8 this

6. 't'hc (l:rlif,,r'nir, stittrttrrrv rtrlc, lill.' tlrc
fcrlct'ul lule, pt'trvitlcs that " Ilt] l'tcr ltc:rr'-
ing tlrt. aplrcal, thc Crtult rnust givtr juclg-
nrent rvithout I egard t<t tcr:lrrricltl orl ors ol'
rlcfccts, or to cxct';.rtions, tvhich do not
tlft'ct. tlrr,srrlrstirrrl.i:rl rir(lrls t,f tlrc pitr-
tics." (l:tl l't'rt (lorlc \ l2l-rli.

7.'l'hc (l:rlilirrrri:r Supt'r'ttrt' (btrrt irt tlris
t':rsc rlirl noL fittrl it "tttisc:trt ittgt' of jtrsticc"
as to pctitioncr Tcale, lrtrr'attstt it fountl
frorrt "othcr srrbstarrtiitl cvitlencc, Ith:tL]
the proof of his guilt titust be dccntccl

COUIiT REPORTS 17 L ed 2d

stutement in Fahy itself belies any
belief that all trial errors rvhich
violate the Constitution automati-
cllly czrll fol'revelsal. At the same
time, hou,ever, lil<e the fedcral harm-
iess-error statute, it emphasizes an
intention not to treat as harmless
those coustitutional errors that "af-
fect substantial rights" of a party.
An error in admitting plainly rele-
viurt eviclence which possibll, in-
fluenced the jury iidversely to a
litigant cannot, uncler Fahy, be con-

* [386 tls 2.1 I
ceived 'rof as harmless. Certainly
error, constit ntiottal el'ror, in il-
legall-v admitting highll, prejudicial
evidence or comments, casts on
someone other than the person
plejudiced by it a burrlett to show
that it $'ils harmless. It is for that
reason that the original common-
lau, h:rrrrrless-error rule put the
burcleu on the beneflciary of the
error cither to prove that thele was
no injr,rr.v or to suffet' a l'eversal of
his erroneoush' obtlinecl judgment.e
Thele is little, if irny, differetrce be-
tu'cen or.ll' statcmertt in Fahl' v
Connecticut :tbor-tt "whether there is
a reasonable possibilitl, that the
evidence complained of might have
contributecl to the conviction" ancl

lerlriring the beneficiary of a con-
stit.utionrrl en'or to prove beyond a

leasonable doubt that the errol'
complained of did not contribute to
the verclict obtairted. We, therefore,
do no more tlt:tn atlhere to the meall-
ing of our Fahy Case rvhen rve hold,
as \\'e nou, tlo, that before a federal

ovclllielnritrg." 6lj Cal 2d, at 197,401
l'2,1, lt 220.

8. Sec, e.g., Paync v Arkans:rs, 356 US
1('0, 2 L c<l 2d 9?5, ?U S Ct t3'1'1 (cr-rerccd

conft.ssion); (litloon v W:tinrvlight, 372
tlS ll;tir, i) L ctl 2rl 71)1), ti;i S (lt 71,2,9:t ALIt
2rl ? jiji ( r'iglrt tr, <:outtst:l) ; 1'ttrtttry v Ohio,
2?:f tlS 510,71 L t'tl 7.11),.17 S Ct 4'.!'7,50
ALli 12.1;; 1irrrlr:rltial jurl,{e).

9. Scrr gctit,r'ully 1 \Vigtttottr, Ilvidencc
S 2l (;trl orl. ll),10).

const,
harm,
clecla r

beyor:
appeli
have
such l.
to all
adopt i

able s

the
our

S,ii

Fi

181 .

ilrd, tr',
in thc'
petitio
sion or
pl'o.se(.il
from t)'
sel anri
forth ir

nia Sn;,
izerl I ]r,
:rs follt,

"Sut'l.
tives fr,,
rlling c,,

Chapm.
in l{r.
ately 1rr.,
of into.r:
defenrir,
other. ti,
the shor
the ren.
therefro r

r,vhy del',
tration ri
l<illirrg,
rvritten 1

rlal's irfl ,

had :r lr;
sion rvhr,
ing of r'
after his

10. cf. \1
385 US 2?1;



l(
I17Led2d

lre lies :rny'
r'()l's rvhich

:rutomati-
,t the s:ttne
Icral harm-
,h:tsizes:rn
,. harntless
s that "af-
,:)f ir pal'ty.
,lriinl.v rele-
ossiltly in-
rselv to :r

Irr', l;e cott-

('ertainlv
r'()l', in il-
prejurlicial
casts on

lrc person
,rr to shou'
is fol thrtt
I conrmon-
r put the
rrJ' of the
t lhere rvas
lcversal of
.irrrlgmerrt.e
I'erertce be-
rr I.ahy v
rr:r there is
that the

rtight hin'e
c1ion" atid
of a con-

, beyond ir
t he el'rol'

ntribute to
. I ]rerefore,
, the nrcrrn-
'rrt rve holrl.
c a federirl

;rt 197,,10.1

,.,rrs, l]5(i IIS
SII (cot'tclrl
rr,, r'i11ht, ii72
?|2. t);t n Lli
rrrrly v Oltio,
S (lt 4117, l-r0

r r'. Iivirlcn<'t,

CIIAPIIAN v

co,stit.rrt irrrrrr 
",.,'o;tn.:J;l'i"",,'",Ii"h:rlnrlcss, thc court ntust be irblc to

decl:rrr: a bcliel' thlrt it \\.us It:rrlrlcss
l;eyonrl ir rcirsonuble rloubt." Whilc
:tppcllirlc corrrl s do not ot.rlinalilt,
have thc origirurl lirsk of irltpll,ing
such lr 1cst,10 it is l frrnrili,,r,.t,i,,il,,.il
to lrll corrlts,,irn(l \\-e ltelicvc its
adr-rlition u'ill lrlovirlc ir ntol.e u.or.k_
alrle slirrtd:rlrl, lrllhoLrgh irchicr.ing
the slrrne I'csult irs th:rt lrintcrl lrt in
ottr Iritht'r,lrse.

t\,,.

l8l Apltlf ing t he foregoing stirrrrl-
irrd, rve hirvc no cloultt 1htr1 1.hc cr.r,ol
in lhcse (,lrscs \\,its rtot ]utlnrlc,ss to
ltctil ioncls. 'j'o I'eirch this conclu_
siotr onc necrl onlv glirnce ir1 t he
1lt'osecrrloli:rl (.ontntents contltilcrl
from the. r'er.or.rl lt.t' pet.itirinci.s, r.oult_
sel irn(l (ri'ith tninor- ontission.s) stt1.
foltlr in thc ttplterrriix. Thc C:riif,,r._

,:, [;]s(i t 
.s :; l

niit Srrpr.erne Coult ,r,lailll, suntntiu._
izcd thc'exlent of these conrr.rrcr.rts
irs follorvs:

"Sut,h contnrents rvent to thc nro_
tive.s 1'rlr the ltr.ocurenteut und hlrn-
rlling of guns pirrchusecl br. llls.
Challmrrn, frrnrls oi' the lacl< iheleofin lIr. 'feule's possession inltierli-
ittelr' ltrior. t o the I<illins, the unroLrni
of intoxicirting litluors consuntecl I,lr.
tlcferrrl:rrr1s ;tt the Spot (.lrrlr ,,n,i
other tat'erns, the cit.cumstarrccs of
the shooting in the :rutomol.rile :rrrrl
t he lr-,r.rtrlvlrl ol. the victirit's lrorlv
thcrcft'orn. u'lro firc<i thc 1'rrt:rl slrr,L-,
rvhy rlefen<l:rnts rrscd lr firlse regis_
tration irt rr motel shotil1. aftci, the
l<illing, tltc ntelning of a lctter.
r,,,rit1en Irr. ]lrs. ('hrrpnt,lrn scvcr.lr j
tllrys rrllr'r' Ilrc lrillinq, tvlrr. .l.c:ilr,
h.'rrl :r Ir,;1111,.; \\'(,rrl,()ti irr ltis l)(,.<.i(.s_siorr ryherr rrppr.chcntlr:rl, thc ntoirn_
irrg of st:rtrrrrtcnl.s nurrlc l.rr..l'clrlc
iti'ter his irlrpr.ehcnsion, u.hv cei.trLitr

.... _l 
0: 

_ ! f , \Vootl b.v v Irnnr igration St, r.vict,,
385 US 27(i, t7 L e<l 2rl il(;2,87 S Cr -n..1.

clothing iinrl :ri'tic,lcs o1' pelson:LI
l)I'oI)crt \. u'cre sIr i1Iltcd ] rr. rje1.entl:rn1 sto llissorrli, rvhrit clothing l{r.s.
Clhrrltnrirn lvore rrt 1.he time of the
l<illirrg, conllicling sttrtcmcl)ts trs toIIt's. Ohirltman's u,hcr.elrborrts itr_
nrerlirLtelv precc(ling the I<iliitrg irn<1,
gcl)cl'irll\-, thc r,r'er.ltll (onllt)ission ()f
the crinie." 6ll ('al 2rl, rrt lttg, 4g4
P2rl, lt. 220.

'l'hrrs, thc stltc lrlosccrrtrtr.,s iu.,gri_
ment trlt(l t he trj;il .jurlgc,.s ir.rstruc-
tion 1o thc jurv corrtirrriouslv lnrl r.c_
lrclrtctlll, irtrpt'esserl the iur.r- that
f lonr the failule o1' pe1it ioricr.s 1o
tcstifr,, to lril intorts :rrtrl J)ul.l)()scs,lire inl'elcttces I'r.or.n thc 1'rtclts iri
eviricncc hrrd to l.re cllliu,n in 1,ar..or
of the State-in shor.t, that lrv their
silcncc petitioners hud serveri as ir_
lcfutal.rle u,ituesscs ugltinst thenr_
st,lvr,s. Anrl t horrr-.]r the (.lrsc irr
rvlrii,h this occur.r'erl plesentcrl lr lca_
.sonirlrlv stlon.q,.cilcrrntsLrintiirl u.clr
o1' t-.r'idence" lrgitin.*1 pctitioncls, 613('rrl 2ri, rrt 11)?, ,l()l p2(1, at 220, it u.its

',,{3s(i trs 261
rtlso it clrse irl u'hir.h, itbsent the crin_
,sti1 Lrtiontrll.r' furbitlrlen,:,contntents,
honesl, fait'-ntintled .jurors mighi
vclv ri'cli h:n'e br.orrght in not_guiltt,
verrlicts. Untler these circLrtrrstances,
it is t.onrltletclv intltossible i.ol Lr.s to
.sirv thirt the State hrts rlentr>nstriite.rl,
bcr.c-rrtd ir reasolull)le rioubt, th:rt the
l)t'os€cu1rrt.'s contntcnts tLnrl the tt.ial
iurlgc's instnrction (li(l ltot con_
1-i'iUute to ltetitionet.s, convictions.
Srrclr lr nlr<.hine-gun r.c1tr:ti1.iort ofit riurilrl ()l' coust itrrtionirl I.igh1s,
dcsigncrl :rnrl cirjculaterl to -,,kepctitiorrcls' vel'sion of the cvirlence
l'orthiess, ciut lto mot,e bc consirlered
h:u'rrr lcss 1.hlrn t hc introrluct.i<tir
rrg:tirrst. :r rlcl'crrrirrrtt ol lr c()ol.co(l
crrl l'cssion. Scc, c.l!., Irtrl,nc v
..\r'l<rrrrsrrs,:156 IIS I(i0,2l, crl 2ri
975, 7S S ('t 8.1.1 . pt:tiLiorrlr.s rrle
cntitlcrl to :r tljal 1't.cc I'r.onr thc 1trc,s_sul'e of ulrconstitulionirl infet.ences.

Ii,cvelsc<l trncl lenrlutclecl.

(]AI,I1.'ORNIA
lrl 705, 87 S Ct iij 1

717

l

:i

*
rt?

.iil

')lr
'!

r,t ,.t
,x.,a

#
t"
i:f

a1

,r{